• Re focus:
Both Foci can be independently set to one of the five resource meters or the "Balanced" setting.
This makes the UI much simpler anyway.
I'm not sure what your point is... This is consistent with my previous post on the subject.
• there's no reason to start using hexagonal or pentagonal "boxes" for the icons.
There's no need to do anything other than a standard droplist, really, but the hex-box seemed appropriate since you could have six same-size and shape hexes surrounding, gap-free, the central selected hex. Since the selectable options are the same shape as what you clicked, it's clearer that you're picking a new thing to replace when you clicked on to open the ring.
• primary and secondary selection buttons need to look different.
Labels "1" and "2" would work, without needing different widgets to be implemented... It's not really any clearer what the different-size buttons would have if you didn't already know what they did. And if you did know, then you'd be fine with same-looking buttons...
• the information in the sidebar needs to leave room for the largest sized planets. Thus the ghosted gas-giant.
The UI widgets can partly cover large planets.
It's important to not use any unnecessary horizontal width to the sidepanel. You art guys like your 1600x1200 or so huge resolutions, but people running 1024x768 need all the space they can get in the middle-of-screen map view, particularly on the production screen.
• i think it's fine to risk getting the flags partially covered by the planets. Flags should still be recognisable even in the rare situations when they are half covered.
About the flag: I'm not a fan of showing it behind the planets, but we could show this on-top of the planet, but on the shadow side.
I agree with pd; put it at the top-left over the planet. Likely a bit smaller than in eleazar's mockup. Also: rather than a "flag", wouldn't it be a non-square-shaped imperial symbol?
A statement of turns to completion is likely to be an inaccurate prediction
Why is this inaccurate?
As I discussed above, many factors influence how long it takes to build something. Turns left, if current conditions remained constant, can be calculated, but not actual turns left, which will depend on all those unpredictable factors.
Why should I be interested in the progress, that is already made, especially if it's shown with a bar, which in the end only shows a percentage in a vague way? If I do want to know this, I could click or hover on the item.
* Most people are used to seeing build progress bars for production or research in this context.
* It's more intuitive to see build progress increase each turn, rather than time left decrease (even if it was completely accurate and consistent decrease without erratic changes, as above). Production is an interactive, ongoing process, not a timer that counts down until an exact unchangable time of completion.
* The progress bars are more prominently displayed on the queues, so having the progress bars be displayed on the sidepanel is consistent
* If we eventually have sabotage or other means by which spent PP on a building-in-production can be lost, then it would be clear from the progress bar that the turns left to completion has increased because of lost progress, whereas just increasing the turns to complete would not indicate that this is due ot additional work being needed, and not reduced spending of PP
* There's strategic importance to the amount of resources put into something. If an expensive building is 94% complete, you'll likely want to protect it and ensure it has access to production points to continue building. Just seeing "6 turns left" doesn't make it clear how much cost has already been spent in proportion to what's left.
called 'marking' oder 'pie' menu
I'm not sure if "oder" means "order" or "or" if "marking oder pie menu" is a specialized type of pie menu you're referring to, but most pie menus
don't have an active centre button that does something with a single click. The centre is empty, or cancels away the menu if clicked again. In case it's unclear, my suggestion is also a pie menu, specialized to six options and shown with hexes (though there's no reason we couldn't add additional menu options on the 2nd ring out, should this widget be reused for something else, perhaps in combat...?)
And I prefer a way, where you click and hold your mouse.
I'm not sure what you mean by this... Is it that you prefer to click-hold-drag-relase to select an option, rather than click-release-move-click-release? My version could work with both input methods, just like a drop-list does. In particular, if you clicked once, it'd open and stay open until you clicked again, either in the centre to cancel / not change, or on one of the outer ring options to select it. Similarly, if you clicked and dragged the mouse to one of the ring options while still holding, when you released over an option, it would be selected immediately and the ring would close.
I don't think you will accidently change a focus.
If you accidentally click, you will. This is probably why pie menus (and drop-lists) don't (generally) have active centres (or tops for the list) that do something when clicked. Rather, you have to click and move to get to an active clickable spot that does something (ie. select an option from the list / ring).
Actually I think this is a benifit, because it allows changing the focus to balanced with just a single click. No need, to specify into one direction by moving the mouse, just click.
Isn't it rather unintuitive to see a widget labelled with a research icon, click it once, and have your planet switch to balanced focus as a result? And why should balanced have this special treatment?
Your arguments about a regular drop down list, are meaningless, because we just don't have a regular drop down list here.
It's not meaningless, as drop-lists are a very simmilar and commonly used widget that many people are familiar with and which works well. And really, pie menus used in this manner are essentially a variation on a drop list (or vice versa), so the functionality shouldn't be different without good reason.